Baldwin v. Housing Authority of the City of Camden, New Jersey
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
278 F. Supp. 2d 365 (2003)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Sara Baldwin (plaintiff) submitted an application for a Section 8 voucher to the Housing Authority of the City of Camden (housing authority) (defendant). The Section 8 program was a federal program that provided financial assistance to low-income individuals so that they could rent housing from private landlords. Local housing authorities reviewed applications from eligible individuals, approved or denied the applications, and provided vouchers to approved applicants. The housing authority denied Baldwin’s application based on her credit history. Baldwin requested that the housing authority conduct a hearing to review the denial of her application. At the hearing, Baldwin offered evidence showing seven years of satisfactory rental-payment history. Baldwin offered this evidence in order to demonstrate that her credit history did not adequately reflect her suitability to participate in the Section 8 program. However, the hearing officer, a housing-authority employee, stated that Baldwin was not permitted to present the evidence. The hearing officer then upheld the denial of Baldwin’s application. Subsequently, Baldwin brought suit, contending that the housing authority violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The housing authority filed a motion to dismiss. The district court took the motion under advisement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wolfson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.